Even if Harvard discriminates against Asian Americans, the prospects for winning this claim were always dim. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977), and Personnel Administrator v. Davis (1976), Village of Arlington Heights v. Doing so is very difficult and implicates a line of Supreme Court cases, including Washington v. As our numbers increased at selective schools, some White students and administrators viewed Asian Americans as overly competitive and feared that elite campuses would look “too foreign.” Harvard denies intentionally engaging in such discrimination thus the burden fell on SFFA to prove it. For the Harvard case, SFFA uses a bait-and-switch strategy with Asian Americans as plaintiffs by deliberately conflating two distinct concepts: “negative action” and affirmative action.Īlthough Asian Americans are well represented at Harvard, SFFA contends that the university wants to limit our enrollment. That is why SFFA brought the current lawsuits. The Fisher cases resulted in the Supreme Court upholding affirmative action, and Blum even expressed disappointment in the Fisher ruling. ” But SFFA founder Edward Blum, a longtime foe of affirmative action, himself orchestrated the litigation in Fisher v. Supreme Court decision essentially forbids. At the outset of the cases, it contended that “a 2013 U.S. Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), the organization bringing these challenges, operates deceptively. Supreme Court considers challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Asian Americans find ourselves in a precarious position. This piece is part of a blog series highlighting key legal issues facing Asian American and Pacific Islander communities.Īs the U.S. Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation.Technology Law and Intellectual Property.Regulation and the Administrative State.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |